Angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) discriminate between small quantities: A role of memory.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to discriminate between sets of items differing in quantity has shown a growing interest in comparative studies as a diversity of animal species exhibit such quantitative competence. Previous studies with angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) have demonstrated that this species is capable of spontaneously discriminating between fully visible groups (shoals) of conspecifics of different numerical size. In the present study, we investigated quantity discrimination in angelfish adopting a new procedure that we expected to make the task more difficult for the fish. During a pretest period, angelfish were allowed to fully see shoals of conspecifics of different numerical size, subsequently all fish but 1 in each stimulus shoal were hidden behind opaque barriers. Thus, during testing, experimental fish had to rely on their working memory, which implies a certain level of mental representation of the quantities or numbers discriminated. Angelfish chose the larger shoal with similar accuracy when 1 versus 2, 1 versus 3, 1 versus 4, 2 versus 3, and 2 versus 4 stimulus fish were contrasted, but failed to distinguish shoals when 3 versus 4, 4 versus 5, and 4 versus 6 fish were contrasted. Strong similarities were observed in relation with our previous procedure indicating the robustness of the quantity discrimination abilities of this species. Our results imply that angelfish form internal representations and demonstrate that these fish can make comparisons between small quantities of items while relying on their working memory alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it